Blog

Tesla engineers have been keenly focused for some time on the 1.5 powertrain, which we have been testing extensively both on roads and at closed facilities. We have our own data collection kit, but we wanted to see what sort of performance figures we would get from a public track.

The nearest venue to our headquarters in San Carlos is Infineon Raceway in Sonoma Calif., which features a Compulink timing system. We headed up there Oct. 29 for Infineon’s last Wednesday Night Drag of the season.

The event is open to everyone who pays admission.

At $25 per car and $10 for spectators, it’s a fun bargain. Because this was the last meet of the season, more than 300 cars turned up, and the wait between runs was long. But we had fun checking out the selection of cars and chatting with other drivers. And needless to say a lot of people approached us to look at and talk about the Roadster, which was easily the smallest and quietest vehicle on the track all evening. It was probably also the only one to sport attention-grabbing, bright orange leather seats!The crowd was an extremely friendly bunch. They even seemed to forgive my admittedly rotten start on the first run (I was still fiddling with our data acquisition kit on the start line!) One Infineon veteran racer was so kind to give me a few tips and a beginner’s guide to drag etiquette. (It hasn’t been quite as jovial in the blogosphere. One blogger trashed me as a “pitiful driver.” Come on, be nice, people!)

Happily, a driver’s bad reaction time does not affect the quarter-mile test results, as the clock does not start until you break the start beam. So despite my sloppiness, we got a respectable time of 12.76, topping out at 104.7mph. This was roughly what I expected from VP 13, which has powertrain 1.5 and other enhancements under development that we wanted to test. The previous day, VP 13 clocked 12.82secs and 103.3mph, running slightly uphill.

If you’re curious, some comparable quarter-mile times can be found here.

On the second run I was a little too keen and ended up with a negative reaction time of -0.117. I jumped the lights. Sadly I never got a third try because after my second sketchy start they told me the car was too fast and asked me to leave the track.

I mean no disrespect to the wonderful folks at Infineon – but to set the record straight: Any convertible that runs less than 14 seconds needs to have a roll bar, and at first glance the Roadster does not appear to have one. In fact we do have a roll bar, which is integrated into the design of the car but is not immediately visible as it lurks under our gorgeous carbon fiber roll hoop cover. (The clue is in the name.)

My explanation fell on deaf ears. But in fairness, Infineon returned my $25. And when I return next season, I plan to come armed with a CAD drawing as evidence of the integral roll bar. Or maybe I’ll bring a hardtop.

Despite the Roadster’s scorching results, I have to admit I was slightly disappointed to be going home early. I was having a grand time – and many spectators and I came to the obvious conclusion that the Roadster is the *ideal* car to scoop up prizes in drag competitions.

Because there is no gear change or clutch, the car will give very repeatable times, provided the battery charge is at a similar level. As the prize is given for running closest to your predicted time, without going over it, the Roadster has an inbuilt advantage.

Even better (and as my choked starts show), you don’t have to be a professional driver who has perfected his clutch work and footing to consistently perform well in the Roadster. By contrast, drivers of internal combustion engine vehicles must factor in both falling temperatures as the night wears on and the driver’s ability to shift changes seamlessly. Both factors can significantly effect times and diminish their ability to get consistent results.

People interested in cars that don’t compromise on performance or the environment have long been Roadster fans and owners. But now I expect Tesla to develop a following among another group – drag racers!

And don't worry about cruel comments in the blogosphere, i've gotten that too, it's a bizarre culture!

TEG

1:27am | Nov 11, 2008

"...VP 13, which has powertrain 1.5 and OTHER ENHANCEMENTS under development that we wanted to test..."

So, VP13 has a "litte extra" that the current production cars don't have yet?
How close in 1/4 mile time do you think the production cars are now in comparison to what VP13 can do with the "enhancements"?

Interesting article! After following this blog for the last two years, it seems a no-brainer that the Roadster would have an advantage in drag racing. When I first read, "they told me car was too fast and asked me to leave the track" it sounded like they were wise to you. Heh heh.

Needless to say, it's great to be living in a day and age where electric cars are outperforming their petro/alcohol burning cousins!

Michael Thwaite

1:20pm | Nov 11, 2008

That's an un-sung benefit of electric; do ten runs and then see who has the clutch left to run the eleventh.

MPT

Matt

2:54pm | Nov 11, 2008

Fun read, and I definitely agree that it sucks they asked you to leave (I personally think they just didn't like getting spanked by a 100% electric car :D). I got a question though that I would really like answered (only cause I can't find it through google). I've been curious as to how you start the Tesla? Is there just an on/off button/switch you use or is there a key? I've looked at the pictures but didn't notice anything that looked like a start switch and I couldn't see if there was a key slot on the console. Keep up the awesome work and I look forward to finding out more about the Model S (which I might try and buy depending on if I can afford it). Also, any idea when a Tesla store will become to the NJ/NY area (I'm in Jersey about 40/60 minutes from NY).

-Matt

TEG

9:22am | Nov 12, 2008

Matt, it has a traditional key.

Brian H

2:26pm | Nov 12, 2008

I scanned the WHOLE list of results and past stats, and my eyeballs picked out only a few faster; some (few) models of: 'Vettes, BMW 911, Ferrari, Lamborghini, one Ford GT, and a very few others that now slip my mind.

MaxDZ8

2:15am | Nov 13, 2008

Nice, interesting story.

Timo

1:43pm | Nov 13, 2008

Brian H.

I too scanned entire list of results and found 54 cars under 12.7 sec times. Funny thing was that half of those are actually race cars, and not sports cars (Eg. Porsche GT -series, few others), and other half cost about same as small jet plane (Bugatti Veyron, Ferrari Enzo, Ferrari F40, McLaren F1 etc.). OTOH there are few extreme cars that are not in that list like Koenigsegg cars. Also I noticed that none of the Lotus Exiges are in the list.

List has 1767 cars.

That 12.7 sec time is quite impressive for a car that has "only" about 185kW engine and weights over 1200kg. Most cars that have about those same times have much higher HP/kg ratio. EV superior torque shows its greatness I guess. We'll see what happens when you get your battery pack down to 1/3 what it weights now (with triple range) and Drivetrain 2.0 running. Elon mentioned in one of the fun interviews that you guys have managed to get out 20k RPM from the engine in labs, so we could get under 11 sec times with those figures....if you can get enough grip from the tires.

ScottO

2:25pm | Nov 16, 2008

So tell us more about the hardtop! Have I missed something?

Dean B.

7:07pm | Nov 16, 2008

Very interesting results at the races. It is good to see 1.5 performing so well, however, I understand that it does draw higher amps from the power pack. What does that do to the effective range? Also what other battery technology is being looked at or considered? I have heard great things about barium titanate and lithium titanate which have higher power to weight ratios and no thermal meltdown problems. Although it already has all the range I would need for most of my commuting, I want to be able to go on trips and the only way I can think of doing it currently is towing some kind of generator trailer. Until I can get at least a 500- 600 mile range, my trips down to Florida or up to New England just are not realistic.

Timo

4:06pm | Nov 18, 2008

Dean B.

1.5 powertrain has increased max range by approx 10%. It is just more efficient. It is just that when you floor the accelerator when energy is used more, so you might run out of power faster. Same thing with ICE cars too.

Tesla has selected its batteries from reliability, price and energy density. What they are using now are pretty much best you can get for your money. Barium titanate (eg. EEStor system) and iron fosfate etc. all look cooler than ordinary lithium batteries. For example Altairnano batteries look superior to ordinary lithium ion because they don't heat up and have much higher power density, but when you look at their energy density you notice that you would need approx 1/3 bigger ESS to get same range. They are also much more expensive, so you would end up something like triple price ESS to get same range. Battery pack alone would cost about half of the car then. EEstor barium titanate ultracapacitor is claimed to have 280Wh/kg. Tesla battery pack (entire pack with cooling etc.) weights about 450kg that translates to 117Wh/kg. That is pretty good considering it contains heavy casing too. Also that is available *now*, EEStor is not and might never be.

EEStor also says that "15kWh EESU will weight less than 100 pounds and give over 200mile range. Neat trick considering that Roadster has 53kWh battery and has 240mile range. Also that translates to 333kW/kg. Slight contradiction there compared to that other, more realistic, claim. It is very likely that EEStor is nothing but hype.

For 500-600 mile range I wouldn't be too worried about. That's only about 2.5 times the range now, and there are several advancement coming for battery tech that provide much more than that. Best would be Silicon nanowire cathode with similar structure anode (few advancements here, not as radical as Silicon nanowire). Silicon nanowire can theoretically contain ten times the charge current lithium ion batteries have. And bonus is that Silicon does not burn and is about third most abundant material on earth and is already being used in quite a few applications so batteries made of that wouldn't cost much very long. First ones will, of course, but when mass production of them really starts prices will go down quite quickly. Just wait for few years.

What we really need is network of charging stations. We need them for long haul trucks and buses eventually anyway, and with them ordinary family car will get the benefits too. If you have network of those then range isn't that big issue for EV:s. I have thought several ideas about how to get those charging stations build, but it requires that EV makers agree some standard model of how their cars will be charged. What kind of plugs to use, which voltages and amps, etc. Telsa charging stations that only Tesla cars can use will never be profitable (unless you charge the customer ridiculous prices). In order to be profitable business you need to have standards. Even if you are going to give that service as side-product in restaurant parking lot.

For standards I think we need to attach data cable to charging cable so that when it is plugged in the car and the charger can negotiate what voltages and amps can be used automatically. Electronics and standards. Batteries in both charging station and the car can then be any size and shape and whatever tech future will give us, no need for standards there.

sutski

11:59am | Nov 20, 2008

HaHa, nice one Iain! Great story. Must be some good vidclips of the day lurking surely?!

I would imagine sending a few to race each other round Europes drag strips would indeed ruffle a few feathers...The Redbull Tesla Drag Team perhaps?! haha.

This should surely be front page news; that practically only 2 Ferarris are faster in a 1/4 mile run than a Tesla i.e. the F40 and the Enzo.

Astounding result for Tesla! Please get us some more "official" raceway 1/4 mile times asap!

With regard to future "charging networks" that need to be set up, there perhaps is already a network available that is already programmed into all GPS units....it is "Campsites and RV parks". Most are in pleasant greenfield sites, many with good support facilities i.e shops and restaurants, showers etc. and most have plenty of juice that could easily be harnessed too. Much more relaxing than a motorway service station I'm sure...

Jim Mapes

8:28am | Nov 21, 2008

On Charging stations:

To be effective they need to make the process of refueling as transparent to the consumer as possible. That is, in & out in 5 minutes, 10 at most given average lines & wait at local stations or truck stops.

First, to make it happen in an expedient fashion high voltage (ie 4160v, 2130v, 480v) would need to be used. The battery pack has to be able to handle it (the rapid charge). You would need a professional electrician to conduct the charging (I work with 4160v and you DO NOT want consumers handling those voltages, one screw up & they are a lump of carbon). That electrician is skilled labor and likely draws a hefty salary so your on-the-road charging will be at a high markup from baseline kwh prices.

Second, given the above its likely that an offshoot of local electric utility would be the charge provider (they have the labor & facilities). Tesla & other EV companies should be working this out now with the utilities groups to create the standards by which this is done.

I've seen the "better place" hype and the problem with battery swapping is - I buy a new car with a new pack, and it gets swapped with a used pack... I don't think so. Reminds me of a problem with the whole V2G arrangement I've seen talked about before - I buy a car with a $30k battery pack good for about 2,000 charge/discharge cycles and you are going to place/draw charge from it how many times a day...?

Charging stations have to happen to create the infrastructure like exists for conventional vehicles. Beyond that main roadways with a charging mechanism so that you draw power from the road & charge your batteries on the move are likely to be around by the time a few generations go by. Thus you would only need enough battery power to get from the highway to the driveway & back. That however will take another 1000 to 200 years to build on a national scale just as the current road network has.

Timo

5:56am | Nov 22, 2008

Jim Maples, I agree that high voltages required to fast charge EV is a safety challenge, but I don't think it is too hard challenge. My suggestion would be to simply make sure that ordinary mundane people don't handle live wire. Let the car tell the charger that it is now connected before charger makes it possible to start charging. It requires a data cable so that car and charger can negotiate what voltages and amps to use, and very safe connector type that makes it impossible to mundane people to put their hands in wrong place. If someone then deliberately gets himself fried its their fault.

For charging 60kWh in 10 minutes requires 360kW connection. With lets say 200 amps that is approx 1800 volts. That is not too bad voltage, with safe connector type and not live wires it is can be made safe. If you want to charge 600miles worth in that same 10 minutes you need approx three times that 60kWh so 5400 volts and that is a lot. Some sort of compromise here is in order. Maybe 20 minute charging for 180kWh, which would be 2700 volts. Still very high, but manageable.

Five minutes is *FAST* for 600 miles. It takes nearly that same just to fill a gas tank for that much. I would say 10-15 minutes is acceptable for average time spend in charging, and up to 30 minutes for very long charging (big heavy car with huge battery pack). You don't use those charging stations that often, because you can charge your car slowly nearly every night at your own garage. Roadside charging would be in fact rarity, and making those places profitable they would need other source of income, so those places would be restaurants, motels, hotels, shopping malls etc. and not "gas stations".

I also have seen "better place" hype, and can't agree more with you. Battery swapping requires standard battery type for all cars, and with advancing tech and gazillion different car types out there that is absolutely impossible. Never gonna happen. It also requires storage for those very expensive car batteries which would need to be charged every day, so you would end up with more expensive charged batteries, a charger for those batteries and high wattage connection to grid anyway, so why not use that very same setup with cheaper batteries (flywheels for low cost maintenance and no loss charging cycles) and use them to fast charge car batteries? Whole idea of battery swapping is pretty idiotic IMO.

cristian

1:51am | Nov 25, 2008

thank you for creating such an important vehicle that i'm sure would be a step forward on history.
i think it's awesome that u guys have created this awesome fast and sporty looking vehicle.
when this goes into production "bye bye oil dependence" and countries that have a hand over us on this.
please forgive my intrusion with the following suggestion but i wanted to share the idea.
would you guys be able to use hydroelectric generators to charge the battery while in motion.
i know by definition hydroelectric generators use water but if generators are place in rotating parts such as the drive shaft which they would rotate when car is on motion creating the same energy receive on hydroelectric power.

In turn and because of the rotation on driveshaft generators on the vehicle would be receiving self sustaining power from the driveshaft generators
again it just a humble idea and congratulations on this awesome vehicle

Brian H

2:25am | Nov 25, 2008

Glad someone took down the swapping idea. The only way it could work even medium-term would be if there was some universal "form factor" for size and shape of the battery pack. The internals are going to evolve and morph very fast, but it might be possible to agree on a standard "package" for a while. Or not.

Ken Edwards

10:24pm | Nov 25, 2008

To learn more about nanotechnology lithium ion batteries see the article at http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=7342. It features Dr. Cui's exciting battery research at Stanford which has two amazing breakthroughs. 1) apparently this is a lifetime battery since there is no charging degradation at all (huge cost advantage) and 2) the battery has 10 times the storage capacity. Just imagine a coast-to-coast trip in a Roadster on a single charge (2,450 miles of range).

Jim Mapes

10:26pm | Nov 25, 2008

Timo:
Kind of what I was getting at about handling the wire - a union electrician as a filling station attendant. That would be expensive, I work in a power station and am in a union, we have a guy here that had a 4160v breaker flash in his face resulting in massive injuries. No matter how fail safe you try to make it, it can and will fail (in the case he had, a moth flew thru the breaker cabinet making it one of the most powerful bug zappers ever seen at a roughly 1 million degree spark).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF364FPWSyY
This video shows an approximately similar occurrence.

The voltages & amp ratings you have a better idea than I (I work on the suppy side of the setup - fuel & waste handling, steam generation). Most bus voltages run in standard increments as I noted above (4160, 480, 220 & 110 are used in our plant, 2130 is another I have seen) so its likely that one of those would have to be picked (because there would be specific voltages on the substation transformers supplying the site). Certainly the business would need a general cash flow operative, most gas stations rely on convenience stores integrated with their setup.

Cristian:
Any energy you derive off the motion of the vehicle has to be supplied by the vehicles batteries. The only time that is really productive is in braking. If you had something to generate current off the turning of the shaft it would create resistance to motion that the batteries would have to overcome.

Timo

4:14pm | Nov 26, 2008

Jim:

I think we can make that charging safe by not letting anyone deal with live wire. Make that actual connection happen in well insulated place by some automated system way out of reach of mundane people. If they still get fried, it should not be any less safe than handling flammable liquid in ordinary gas station.

I have too worked with kilovolt connections and I know what electricity can do. Worst case is obviously death and with over hundred kW connection there is always a small risk. Those voltages can make electricity to jump, and you really don't want to be in its way when it does that. But it wont jump in the cable, it is the connector where that risk is real. So connections have to be made as safe as humanly possible. It wont of course be quite as low tech as gas station pump is, but components for those systems don't cost too much to not make it safe.

Suppose it works something like this: you drive into a little stall and stop when the wheels hit a little alignment bump. It's dry inside. The car and the stall communicate wirelessly to negotiate all the charging and billing parameters. The stall verifies that the car is in the right position. Two big single conductors emerge from recesses below the floor; they are totally inaccessible when there is no car present. They make contact with matching sockets in a standardized position on the underside of the car. These sockets are near the centerline so that they're virtually impossible to reach accidentally. The sockets are normally covered by hinged doors to keep road gunk out. The doors only open if the car knows it's in a charging stall. The car puts itself in park and the stall raises some wheel blocks so there's no possibility of the car moving. When the connectors are mated the stall and car run thru some tests to make sure the connection is OK and then the high power charging begins. Maybe there's some provision to automatically clean the underside of the car before the socket covers open (jet of water followed by a jet of hot air?). It seems to me such a system could safely handle any reasonable power level.

But there's another problem. Battery charging is not 100% efficient. There will be a LOT of heat generated by a battery charging at 300kW. The Tesla, which charges at only 15kW, dumps that heat into the air via the radiator and fans. To handle 20x that much power would require a cooling system in the stall; it would be too heavy to carry in the car. But it seems like a simple matter to have the stall also connect a couple of water pipes to the underside of the car. The hot water could then be circulated into a large tank or a long pipe buried in the ground or even used for some useful purpose like heating the restaurant.

Comments?

Timo

4:48am | Nov 29, 2008

Bill, I don't think hat heat will be any problem. There is heat generated at discharging too, and Roadster can handle 200kW. If we charge 200kW at 95% efficiency (50kWh battery at 15 minutes) it will generate 10kW heat for 15 minutes. That much can be easily dissipated. It is a tiny problem, but not too big problem.

As what the actual charging procedure I was thinking just ordinary wire that driver connects to car just like he does with filling gas tank. Just make sure that cable is not live at that point. Secure the connection and press a button in charger.

If we go for under car into pavement we could use magnetic resonance induction with no wires at all. I don't know how well that would work for car charging, but Intel and MIT research have managed to get 75% efficiency at distance of one meter. It at least sounds nice.

Jim Mapes

6:52am | Dez 1, 2008

Whatever is hooked to the car wouldn't have live current during the plug in, you'd supply that by throwing a breaker after the plug was engaged. I'd still not see Joe-6-pack & Susie-homemaker making the hook up 7 throwing the switch on that much juice. Someone has to verify that everything is in order before putting the charge to it, they need to be knowledgable and qualified to troubleshoot and evaluate any real or potential problems before they become spark showers.

Timo

6:25pm | Dez 1, 2008

Jim, of course Joe-6-pack wouldn't switch on that much juice, he just presses a button. After that actual connection is first negotiated by car and the charger, then tested that everything is OK (measure resistance) and then switched on by some automatic system well out of reach in some insulated place.

Car-charger connection needs to be foolproof so that you simply can't connect it wrong way. Some locking mechanism etc.

Of course you would need some trained electrician to check equipments every now and then, but you would not need him to check every single charging.

The hard part is to design that car-charger connector, everything else can be handled by automatic systems. It needs to be foolproof enough that no-one can make mistakes. If they make "mistakes" intentionally I'd say let Darwin do his job.

XYZ

11:40pm | Dez 1, 2008

There is one fuel source that might work for your car, look into aluminum air, or lithium air (to expensive) batteries. They have power to weight ratio's that gasoline can not even match. Unfortunately the power to volume ratio isn't that great. However with a buck boost super capacitor bank (which is a aluminum air battery in reverse, and some transistors) tesla could achieve a volume savings. Plus there is tonnes of aluminum just sitting in our landfills to be converted back to energy.

Yes gasoline has more thermal BTU's than aluminum, but by the time your dumping all the BTU's overboard in the radiator
your at about 1.3 KWH per KG of power to the wheels for the ICE.

The tesla 2kwh is alot of power, plus the energy per KWH is far lighter than a Lithium ION battery pack, but larger in cubic volume.

With a super capacitors bank you can also bank far more KWH off braking, you could probably recover 70% of the momentum of the car back into the
capacitor banks. Replace the DC braking resistor on the frequency drive with the buck boost capacitor bank, and battery, to achieve this. Program the
regenerative brake to capture most the energy back, keeping the capacitors full during stop, and empty at speed.

Unfortunately this all costs money to do, and if the negative ninnies keep harping the technology America will never advance, and the chinese or japanese will have this
technology soon.

Peter Goben

9:21am | Dez 2, 2008

Being a middle class hard working American I believe you may have missed the mark by making cars in the price range you have. Remember Ford initially had it right by providing a car for the masses. I would love to drive an electric car on my daily 77 mile commute but even a hybrid would be difficult for me to purchase when considering this countries downward economic spiral and a recent peek (through my fingers) at my 401k savings and investment account. I hope it all works.

Roy

6:46pm | Dez 2, 2008

XYZ: Hail to the Teacher. You think that Tesla (and all of us) doesn't know the advantages of capacitors for regenerative braking? You think cost is no object? Ultra caps are very expensive, to say nothing of the added weight. Tesla does not dump the regen into a resistor, but uses it to re-charge the batteries. Much more cost-effective than capacitors. Aluminum-air and Lithium-air batteries are Primary batteries. Do you know what Primary means? Non-rechargeable. Use them once and throw them away. Maybe you believe the scam at http://www.europositron.com/ Go ahead and invest, they want your money. Tesla has to use batteries that are on the market now, they are selling cars now. When better batteries are available, proven reliable, and cost effective, Tesla will use them. Trust me, they know a lot more than you do.

Peter Goben: One of the very first Think blogs outlines their plan. As a new company they cannot start with a mulit-billion dollar investment in a high volume low priced car. They took the best approach possible, sell new high-cost tech to those who can afford it, and work to larger volumes and lower cost. They are now designing the Model S, a $60-$70k sedan and then will follow on with something cheaper still. Tata Motors is bringing out a lower end vehicle which I am very interested in. An electric version of their Indica http://www.tatacarsworldwide.com/products/indica.asp They are using Electrovaya's Lithium-manganese polymer batteries, which I believe are the best on the market to-day. I expect that Tesla would be evaluating these too.

ML Culver

6:48am | Dez 3, 2008

Hey, I'm with Peter on pricing for "the masses." I have just finished drooling through each of the pages on the Tesla site, and can only dream that I might own one some day. I'm one of those really hard working Americans with expensive taste but live a fiscally prudent lifestyle. Placing this fabulous car into the $40 to $60 thousand price range would probably cause a duplication of what the Japanese did thirty years ago to their American competition.
In any event, if you guys want me to volunteer to drive one all over the metropolitan D.C. area, covered with advertising logos and filled with marketing brochures to hand out, I just raised my hand!

Jorg Brown

5:36pm | Dez 3, 2008

Thanks so much Iain for the first-person account - it prevented me from making a mistake and taking a drivetrain 1.5 Roadster to Infineon in an attempt to set the National Electric Drag Racing Association's record for production electric vehicle, only to be told it was too fast. I took my own Roadster ahead (Signature 100 #9) which was slower than the 14.0 second limit, and was able to race it against the CommuterCars Tango. Since they're in separate voltage classes, they were both able to set records (http://www.nedra.com/record_holders.html), and the video is up on YouTube now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiS4t8TMlI

Timo

6:30pm | Dez 3, 2008

Roy, where you found that info of electric Tata Indica? Their homepage doesn't have any info about it.

Timo

5:16am | Dez 4, 2008

Hub engines or not hub engines, there's the question.

I was discussing about benefits of electric engines compared to combustion engines and transmission effect on torque/power/overall goodness of EV was on debate. There someone said that hub motors don't have transmissions which I responded that yes they do. Alas, I was proven to be wrong.

This setup seems to make hub-motors quite a bit less complicated and lighter, reducing unsprung weight of hub motors quite a bit. It also makes car top speed reaching mach 1 :-P (15k RPM 17" tire equals about 1200km/h). Seriously car wouldn't be able to go that fast, but it would have higher top speed than Roadster because engine RPM is not the limiting factor and with 50kW per tire it creates higher overall power.

I'm very curious how well that car behaves in cornering and rough terrain. If those engines give reasonable torque in reasonable RPM range is should also have one halibut 1/4 mile time.

I did some googling about that Mitsubishi Evo miev. Top speed measely 180km/h (112.5mph) and range only 250km (156miles). So not so good as I expected, but that was in 2005 (so old news). Modern Mitsu MiEV cars are golf cart -like citycars that are just plain ugly. So no competition to Tesla there. They are cheap though.

Maybe Porsche will cook up something little bit more appealing.

Jorg Brown

11:41am | Dez 5, 2008

Sorry Timo, 4 hub motors with 50KW each would *not* be faster than the roadster's 185KW setup, because when you're under heavy acceleration, the weight shifts dramatically to the rear tires, and if you were trying to put 50KW to each of the front wheels, they'd just spin.

Also, there's the question of how fast you have to turn the wheels to get up to 50KW. After all, Tesla's original drivetrain, and the current shipping drivetrain, both get 185kW, but the current drivetrain is 1.7 seconds faster in the quarter mile because it has better low-end torque.

Finally, there's the question of regen. In the Tesla, the regen is awesome; I don't generally use the brakes until I'm ready to park the car, or to slow myself to a complete stop at a traffic light, and it makes a huge difference for range. Does the Mitsu design allow for that?

The above news article describes how engineers have doubled the efficiency of piezoelectric devices that harvest energy from movement and vibration through the application of nano technology. Maybe energy could be recovered from the shocks / tyres in / on the roadster using the new nano piezoelectric devices?

mark ferbrache

1:39pm | Dez 12, 2008

more battery advances keep coming every day.
HP laptops will be offering a new series of battery at additional cost. they will have 1000 recharge cycle instead of 250 cycles.
they will charge to 80 percent in half the time. more advanced voltage and temperature monitoring also.

Indeed, Mark. I just read about lithium-air secondary batteries (that is rechargeable batteries). Lithium-air batteries have theoretical energy density of 11kWh/kg. Imagine Tesla battery that weights only five kilos. That is hundred times more energy in same weight. Unfortunately that theoretical capacity is nowhere close to what practical experiment gives, but they have got up to 750Wh/kg in labs.

Similarly Silicon porous nanostructures have given extremely good results, up to 3600 mAh/g with up to 3 volts for anode. That is 10.8kWh/kg. For cathode highest energy density I have seen in scientific papers has been approx 1400 mAh/g with that same 3 volts. Combined you go with lower figure, so 4.2 kWh/kg. Tesla batteries have approx 200Wh/kg energy density so that would be *20* times better.

Also silicon thin film anode has given extremely good cycling capability. Best I saw was approx 1% drop in 3000 cycles.

That ten times better battery Standford University team claims seems understatement now for me. Battery future looks _very_ promising.

Scott

2:27pm | Dez 14, 2008

The car charges on braking around town. Why not just put in a Faraday type generator on a couple of the wheels and ? Then, when a certain speed is reached, simply run off that. You could increase the distance off a charge to virtually endless.

chad

9:54pm | Dez 14, 2008

Just watch out they seem to break alot, just watched top gear UK and battery ran out in 50 miles on a full charge and while recharging the brakes broke also the other one they had the motor over heated. So i dont know if for 90,000 pounds if it is worth it.

Brian H

3:21am | Dez 15, 2008

Yowza! Focus Fusion has just received the start deposit of ongoing funding, at last. Within 5 years, or thereabouts, it should be possible to supply the WORLD with clean electricity at ¼¢ / kwh! For the Roadster, that would be about 10 miles per cent ( 10mi/¢ ). :D :) :) :) :)

Chad, what exactly did break? Was it Tesla Roadster in that episode of Top Gear?

Timo

3:24pm | Dez 15, 2008

Brian H. I looked at Focus Fusion site. Claims are so great that it feels like hoax, but nothing I saw on net suggested that it is.

5MW power plant that is size of 3x3x9 feet or 0.9x0.9x2.7meters? That's 5000kW. Tenth of that would be 500kW. If that scales down in size too, that would mean fusion generator small enough to fit into car and fueled by few grams of hydrogen and borons for a year. Mr Fusion here we come :-)

Imagine a car that runs on basically broken down water a year straight with enough electric power to compete Bugatti Veyron. Not likely in near future though.

I hope that this tech will deliver its promises. If it does one of those in your garage (or cellar or whatever) would give you clean energy for your entire house and could be used to charge your own future highly improved version of Roadster.

Thanks for the report. I've been watching Tesla from the sidelines, and know quite a few people there (or at least some of the USED to be there). I love the car, and got to experience an early ride (see Green Car blog for my report).

You don't want to be blown off by a 70's electric DATSUN now, do you?????

However, I think you'd better tweak to Rev 1.6 or 1.7 before you give them a call!!

Good luck!! and may the best application of infinite torque win!!

Myles

Joesph Banks

3:43pm | Dez 21, 2008

Comeon folks, especially Timo for making the comment that they had to go for the high end car first. If Tesla actually went for a mid range car they might have a chance to succeed, but now they are out of cash, trying to raise more and are getting turned down at every corner.

I've even heard reports that the Roadsters which they have already collected for are in jeopardy of not being delivered!!! :0

Brian H

9:59pm | Dez 23, 2008

#
Timo wrote on December 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Brian H. I looked at Focus Fusion site. Claims are so great that it feels like hoax, but nothing I saw on net suggested that it is.

5MW power plant that is size of 3×3x9 feet or 0.9×0.9×2.7meters? That’s 5000kW. Tenth of that would be 500kW. If that scales down in size too, that would mean fusion generator small enough to fit into car and fueled by few grams of hydrogen and borons for a year. Mr Fusion here we come :-)
...
========
It doesn't scale. The actual reactor unit is optimized for a particular size, and is already only a few inches across. Most of the volume is gas chamber, X-ray trapping shell, water shell, and power supply. Those can't be reduced much.

However, versions have been designed/envisaged for spacecraft, one-stage MHD engines, which would be able to take off and land and would have solar-system range capability.

Brian H

10:01pm | Dez 23, 2008

JBanks;
you "heard"? Some sourcing, please. Nothing I've seen even hints that any of these rumors are more than sour-grapes sabotage attempts.

Carl Dunn

11:21pm | Jan 5, 2009

During the Drag Test were you using D.O.T street tires or racing tires? When are you going back to Infenion for another run?
I work at the track as a corner worker, have you ever concidered running the car on the road racing track?

Bob Byers

10:34pm | Jan 11, 2009

GREAT stuff!

Did you brake it heavily and have the full torque trying to push you when you released the brake or did you simply take off full throttle from a stopped position?

It is a pity that instead of looking to new breakthrough technology we keep reinventing the wheel. All EVs require charging the on board batteries. If we think about it, this will just make the EV a car with a long, very long pipe. The dirty power plants producing the electricity in the first place are still polluting our air. The goal will be to develop a power supply that can in fact not only supply to the car, such as the Tesla sport vehicle, but also be able to supply the power to the electricity network, local or national grids, for others to use. This is, if the power is produced cleanly and at low cost. New technologies were announced by various companies. Hydrogen generation on demand, whether through "fusion" using water to produce hydrogen or other chemical reaction methods is something to consider using water as a fuel. A plasma MHD generator (http://peeker-corporation.com) was also announced. This technology uses the magneto hydrodynamic principle to produce electricity when a conductive fluid passes a heavy magnetic field to yield electricity. With no moving parts in the system these very light and small in size generator claim to produce electric power continuously from 5 to 20 years based on the half life of the rear-earth isotopes safely sealed inside the sealed off system. Something new and disruptive? You bet! If these generators will be available soon and power any size dc electric motor up to at list 900 hp we will be all set to use it for small and large engines with no practical cruising limitations. Provided that this technology is available to retrofit in the Tesla cars, the lithium battery bank may be eliminated giving yet less weight to the car while the range may be measured in years. More so, if this power generator is an on-going energy supplier, instead of taking electricity from the wall to charge batteries, while the Tesla car is at idle, the clean electricity produced constantly may be sold to the utility companies for a handsome profit to the owner. If we think about it, we may all rush to buy the car since selling the electricity alone may pay off the car before we know it. Actually, a 200 hp (149 kW) motor in the Tesla car when stationary in the garage for say 12 hours per day, could sell its electricity from the plasma MHD generator to the local utilities (536.4 MWh-year) at $0.035 per kWh, or a projected profit of $18,774 per year.

tina juarez

5:31pm | Jan 20, 2010

Iain, Jorg;
I don't get it... you passed tech.. was it the jump start that dropped you out or you went under your bracket?? It seems to me if they let you drive at all with an open top, it wouldn't become a reason for "sending you home" after you's done a couple of runs. Frankly, I don't get "brackets" but it is an EVent that EVs can knock the sox off of ICEs!!
When Does Infineon open & will you be out there for Full Throttle?

zvi

3:49pm | Feb 1, 2010

"For standards I think we need to attach data cable to charging cable so that when it is plugged in the car and the charger can negotiate what voltages and amps can be used automatically. "

Not necessarily. These are constant values, right?

If the data is constant, The driver could carry a swipe card (like a credit card) that could contain this information and could be read by a card reader. The card could be kept on the keychain. This would probably be simpler than the data channel from the car.

On the other hand, I suppose you need to be able to lock the charger cable into a public charging station to prevent vandalism if you're going to leave the car charging itself for several hours.

@Zack:
Nothing stops a Tesla owner from investing in buying high-tech generators of various classes. For example, you could install solar panels on your roof. The mechanism does not need to be small and light (as it would need to be if it were built into the car). The Tesla decouples the generation mechanism from the car by using a standard power source (i.e. electric power) that accommodates whatever generation mechanism you want to use.

In the meantime, the company can build drivable cars today, today, which means that it can generate revenue (important) and build a customer base (also important) that will fuel and encourage additional innovations down the road. There's a balance between getting something to market (surviving/growing) and using new technologies. There will always be something new around the corner; at some point, you need to take what you can get, and work with it.